tv [untitled] March 9, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
>> with in the hours on the permit application of 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m.. president garcia: and we run the risk of something happening to miss lewis. commissioner hwang: the department has reviewd thed the hours on a six-monhth or twelve- month basis. >> she does not have the operate between all of them, she can make that the -- a decision. on that motion? commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: no. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> vote is 4-0, motion carries. 4-1, very sorry. the permit is to be granted. the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies,
the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applicant in after hours permit. the entertainment commission's position must be reversed because it was impermissibly in effect and with procedural irregularities and is totally unsupported by the records. stipulated fax including the high volume of volume associated with this neighborhood restaurant [unintelligible] there is no basis to grant this application. there is no right to operate a fast food restaurant 24 hours a day. furthermore, the commission's decision isn't in deference to this body.
this body must give no regard to the decision except the fact that we point out, procedural irregularities and the finding that the restaurant at to be opened because we need a place to make people less drunk. we need a place where drug people can go to become less drunk. there is the articulation of public safety. the business owner must meet the criteria set forth in the san francisco police code, as the commission's own brief, they are at the utmost importance. when the police code as applied, there is no factual basis to grant an after-hours permit here. we indicated the area around the restaurant, you will hear from
the advisory board in the richmond district that the police calls have been a concern for some time. these calls are so problematic that the commander of the police station request of the board to investigate the matter. you will hear from the board in this year. he admitted that there were a new amount of criminal and police calls. the numerous antidotes -- anecdotes that are here, a word of warning. there is a fight here nearly every week. less than two months after we sat down, a decorated marine veteran of iraq got into a fist fight with a purported gang
member at this restaurant and was run down and in a vegetative, today. he sits in the kaiser facility, not responsive, totally in a vegetative,. the problem with this location, i went and inspected it. i will attest that the restaurant's 240 square feet is a lot. the bars on clement street closed down and we have attached photos. you can get a sense of procedural irregularities that are numerous. an amazing amount of people given the 90,000 residents signed a petition opposing the permit. the staff dismissed a petition saying that it was unclear, it
should be disregarded because most people live outside the city. that is false. over 1000 people showed richmond addresses on the petition. the staff also stated that the numerous e-mail's at letters that were received by the entertainment commission should be disregarded because they are to generalize. they complain about the operation of this restaurant. the statement of facts continues, you cannot restate the facts. in this regard, the entertainment commission drops a footnote falsely asserting that supervisor mar support to that application. it is on record that we attach to that he opposes this.
the first vote is to deny the permit. the vote was 4-1 with only the vice chairman voting in favor of the two denied a permit absolutely. without public comment or an opportunity for us to be heard, the amendment permits said that it will be from 4:00 to 6:00, which doesn't really address the public's safety issues because it occurs at 2:00 a.m.. the vice chairman stated that the reason the fast food restaurant should remain open will help people not be as strong. we will have this restaurant to help people not be as drunk. intoxicated people will and buy food and it will help them. eating a jack bugerrger, drinking coffee doesn't sober someone up. the only thing that does that is
time, letting the alcohol get out of your system. paragraph 2, 3, 7, 8 are not satisfied. it states that the application should be denied if it cannot accommodate the traffic that is expected. the police recommended that the establishment stay open, and after hours basis by attaching conditions. and that there would only be 18 people allowed in the rest regent restaurant any time. the next one was whether or not malaise in the community will be affected. the evidence is overwhelming that the noise associated with after hours has been disturbing the peace of the neighborhood. and we respectfully request that the commission vote to deny the after hours permit.
does anyone have any questions? >> possibly not, because the brief was pretty clear. >> i wanted to say one thing before you sit down. in the public, a section that we will get to a few minutes, i want to make sure you understand that board members and officers of the associations would not be eligible to speak during public comment. >> i will represent you that everyone that's here, board members and associations, they will make that clear. >> that's fine, i just wanted to make it clear. we can hear now from the permit holder. the representative?
>> could evening, mr. garcia, hit my name is arthur bryden. we service a consulting firm in five states. we are not legal counsel. i think in this case, this gentleman owns the franchise. he has done everything that -- and gone beyond that at the entertainment commission and the supervisor mar recommended they do. he is trying to be a good neighbor. they have not even opened yet. they spent the last month going around the neighborhood trying to build bridges and cooperate with a fellow -- the fellow
residents. i believe it would be unfair, they have done every single thing. everything conditioned on the permit. they have gone beyond that. yet they still have not opened because they continue to want to build bridges with the the neighborhood. i think it would be unfair for them to be closed before they get started. we went to two hearings with the entertainment commission. very exhaustive. the gentleman from the police department supported the permit. now you are being asked to revoke it before they get out the starting gate. that does not seem fair and it seems a denial of due process. they have not done and read -- anything wrong. we are sorry about the gentleman who was hurt. severely injured.
it could have happened anywhere. it was an isolated incident. nobody likes of violence. my mother was a victim of violent crime. what can you do? this was an isolated incident. the police department supported the permit. there have been no other incidents. i cannot see a compelling reason for you folks to overturn the permit that has not been activated. i will turn to mr. kahn. >> let me add something over here that in 2011, july, i was invited to visit and listen to their hearing. on that hearing, not even once did they mention 2:00 and four o'clock.
a member of the sea pact -- cpap was there. in 2010, the police were called many times. i was misquoted that i told him the majority of the calls was because of the homeless issue we are facing in the area. this suggests that following the recommendations and go from there. i said that was fine. they came down over to visit the store. we followed all of the recommendations. in august the -- they are praised our effort and said things are fine. so, again, in both meetings, it was not once mentioned. all of a sudden, i do not know
why this issue came up. i do not understand. look at the permit and look at the conditions attached to it. i am willing to adopt all of these conditions. give us a chance. >> i think the issue is we are sorry about the isolated incident. the policeman, the police department have approved our permit. we did everything they asked us to do. i believe it now, to try to be a good neighbor, this gentleman and his manager and staff are trying to build a bridge. they have not even opened between 2:00 and four o'clock. out of respect for the neighborhood they did not.
now it seems unfair and of a borderline violation of their due process because the governing body told them what to do and they did it. as far as the permit having lapsed, this gentleman and someone else our franchisees'. they bought the store from jack in the box. they paid for the permit. somehow in the mumbo jumbo of moving paper it never got issued. it is not like he has been ignoring the law. they did everything they are supposed to do. as far as regulations, health the san francisco, all of their deposits are made on time and perfect. i know because i set them up. all i am asking is that give them a chance to prove themselves considering the fact
we went through the hearings and did what we were asked to do. there is nothing missing. questions? >> you say this is new, you have not been opened since 2:00. the restaurant was opened before you bought it in. during this time when there was confusion about the permit, where you open? >> it has been open since 1988 for 24 hours. until 2011. >> when you purchase to the franchise, you kept it open 24 hours. how long? >> until december. i acquired the store in 2008 and until december 2011.
we do not have a permit for the hours, we immediately shut down. >> the day we found that the permit has not been extended, they closed the store. no problem. i would ask the board to consider the fact that these gentlemen have done everything they are supposed to have done. the entertainment commission, the supervisor made suggestions. they followed every one of them. they have not even opened the store. it is only fair to give them an opportunity to implement the safety features they have installed. other questions? >> mention supervisor mar -- you
mentioned supervisor mar. >> i did not mean him as the appellant. >> you mentioned supervisor mar and the appellate counsel mentioned him. did he take a position on this? >> as i understood it, with the conditions put in place, he supported it. initially, he did not. i did not have face-to-face conversations with him. i do not know. i know his staff suggested various things, security guards on the weekends. that came from him. they did it. >> this could become a political issue. we just got caught between a two issues. public safety, my employees and
my family, if i think it is unsafe, i would not be open. >> any more questions? >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> good evening. entertainment commission. i apologize, i am nervous. i have not done this before. we issue a lot of permits but do not get many appeals which hopefully speaks to our process. hopefully you had a chance to read the brief. as somebody mentioned, it was pretty clear. i do not want to repeat a whole bunch of things but i will explain there has been some
question about why the entertainment is -- commission is involved. we have been, since we have been doing regulation, in charge of extended hours even when there is no entertainment provided. anything open to the public that serves food, and this is in the definition of the police code, come under art jurisdiction. -- our jurisdiction. we found out that this 24-hour restaurant was operating without a permit from us. by virtue of a terrible incident that has been recounted to you. we reached out to the jack in the box operator and informed him that he could not continue to operate. he needed to come in and work in our department -- with our
department. there was a permit issued in the 1980's for 24 hours, issued by the police department. for the same location, the same facility. so, long story short, they came before us. it was continued once. the involvement of the community in supervisor mar and sued. there was one continuance and then it came back to the commission on the 24th of january. as was indicated, staff provided an overview of what was in the file, including the recommendations and the passage of inspection from the fire department, planning department. they indicated the use was appropriate for the location. the police department did send a
recommendation to approve, with the conditions. i all of those conditions were included in the permit that was granted. to make a comment, or to respond to the appellant with respect to my staff and the way they might have described the file, i think the description was done in such a way that he wanted a commission to understand that the most useful conditions they could consider, if they were to grant this permit were ones that were formed by virtue of specific complaints and ones that could be tied to the venue. what i think he was indicating was that many of the lenders
were describing neighborhood issues as a whole, describing the context of the neighborhood at night time but not necessarily tying those complaints to the venue. so that the commission could be clear that they should consider conditions that are relevant to these locations as opposed to tying every possible police called to this one location. so, everyone got two minutes. the appellant made a comment regarding that they could not speak. everyone got the same amount of time as far as process is concerned. his comment relevant to a vote that was taken and then not approved and another motion that
did not pass after testimony had been concluded, and another motion was put forward. we do not allow public comment after failed motions. i want to leave some time for the officer to respond because i think public safety will come up over and over. with respect to the numbers, the specificity of complaints, officer more has information that will be helpful. >> as far as the calls to that location, i brought up 3000 calls in 24 hours. i do not know at the time line or dates. i ran all calls to the exact
location, 4649 geary blvd. i also ran all calls on that unit blocked, the 4600 block as well as the intersection of 11th ave. i broke that down into the 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. period. i went through each call for service and figured out which once belonged to jack in the box. since january 18, we have 37 calls. that is about one for every three weeks. the 3000 calls is a little skewed. that is taking into account some calls the cannot be considered calls for service such as traffic stops, self initiated activity, that is not necessarily our call for service.
i did another incident because the actual crime was almost two blocks away. the the actual crime where he was ran down was almost two blocks away. that is not included. the former captain agreed that these conditions were fair and relevant to the situation. the new captain also believes they are fair and would limit the cost for service in the area. >> what was the other comment? >> i cannot speak for the commander. when he was promoted to commander, the officer in my position went with him. i took over with the new
captain. i cannot recall what the comment was. >> did you run the numbers of calls during the time when he is now closing at 2:00? >> i did. there have been in two calls per service. both were made -- one was made by jack in the box. it was of a customer refusing to leave. the other was made by a neighbor about a vehicle in the parking lot revving their engines. the police responded to that in the car was not there when we arrived. >> i think your review and of the calls for that two years find there was one call every three weeks at that location? >> there was an average of one
call per three weeks that were jack in the box-related. there are different ways an officer can be dispatched to a location. they can say there is a homeless issue. that will not -- it may be a jack in the box patron causing a disturbance. i went through each one report and extracted the jackpot -- jack in the box calls. >> how long have you been a police officer? >> five years. >> what do you think of that call average? >> it is not high. >> what would be highly? >> 1 a night. maybe even a couple low week would be considered an issue. -- couple a week would be
considered an issue. >> what would be the procedure if the security guard, down the block somebody is making noise and disturbing the sleep of someone, what would the security guard to do about that? >> they are not responsible for something one block away. they would be responsible for the restaurant and the surrounding area. on the security guards, when a bar or a club has their permit issued, it is often one security guard to 75 patrons. their occupancy man is 49 and they are required to have two cards. i think that is more than fair. >> the occupancy of this establishment is 18. what is your